of reasoning to attribute temporall deliverance to Iehovah and Salvation to Iesus onely for as much as Iehovah is the Authour of all good temporall spirituall and eternall yea our Salvation in Scripture is specially ascribed to Iehovah or Lord as Isa 43.11 I even I am Iehovah and besides me there is no Saviour So Vers 14. This saith Iehovah your Redeemer So Isa 12.2 The Church shall say Behold God is my Salvation I will trust and not be afraid for the Lord Iehovah is my strength and my Song he is also become my Salvaâ—ion So Deut. 33.29 Psal 84.11 Isa 26.4 And in very many places besides It is therefore beyond measure absurd to preferre Iesus above Iehovah and to ascribe Salvation to Iesus onely for if the Name Iesus be above Iehovah of necessity it must be above the names God the Father and God the Holy Ghost and so either way the second Person will be made greater than the first or third Person Answer To your demand I have often made answer that we take not the Name without the sense nor doe we make comparisons betweene the Persons nor hold we that Iesus is one Iehovah another Lord another We doe distinguish the Essentiall Name and the Relations and not divide the essence nor separate the Persons And distinguishing betweene Names and Titles of the same Person make not Christ two If we did as you doe here insinuate and in your third ranke of absurdities at the tenth doe openly charge the Church wee should by your first reason be Nestorians by your second Arrians Socinians as impious as your selfe To your second answer I reply that you are very absurd to thinke we attribute temporall salvation to Iehovah and not eternall But this we affirme that God was in the Old Testament knowne by the Name of Jehovah but in the New more fully by the Name of Iesus Yet not as if Iehovah were aliud and aliud Iesus one thing and another but the same essentially For the one-most God is the three Persons and so Salvation is the work of the whole Trinitie The places you cite are plaine for us the same Iehovah Elohim Lord God which is the Father and the Sonne and the Holy Ghost is our Saviour our Redeemer And because hitherto unlesse you would be conceived a Tritheite you have writ nothing to any purpose I le tell you something if you will promise me to remember it to great purpose This is it Though our Redemption be a worke of the whole Trinitie yet by the eternall Counsell it was terminated onely in the Person of the Sonne of God He therefore is set forth that in and by him the other Persons with him may have the glory For thus I Reason Whosoever hath a Name greater than others is therefore more excellent than those whose Names are not so great Therefore If the Name Iesus which is a Name peculiar to the second Person be a greater Name than Iehovah which he hath common to him with the other Persons or greaâ—er than the name God the Father or God the Holy Ghost it will follow expressely that the second Person is greater than the first or third Person The first part of the Argument is p oved from Heb. 1.4 where the Apostle proves that Christ was better than the Angels viz. because he had obtained a more excellent name than they This is also confirmed by the Analogy of the Scriptures for I have shewed before that Name above another doth alwayes denote the excellency of the Person above another that hath not so great a Name as Deut. 26.19 The Lord promiseth his people that will keepâ— his Commandements that He will make them high above all Nations in praise in name and in honour So Isa 56.5 The Lord promiseth to the Eunuches that will keepe his Sabbaths a Name better than of sonnes and daughters that is he will bestow upon them a greater excellency and honour than those that have sonnes and daughters viz. in that respect or tâ—ey shall be more excellent by that name that he would give them than they should have beene by having sonnes and daughterâ— Therefore to affirme that Iesus is above Iehovah doth expressely sight against this Text of 1 Cor. 15.27 where God having subjected all things under Christs feet hath yet excepted himselfe that did put all things under him Seeing therefore he hath excepted himselfe and hath not subjected himselfe to Christ by the selfe-same reason he hath not subjected his Name to Christs Name for if he had by the reason above-specified he had also preferred his Sonne above himselfe Answer I fiâ—st tell you your supposition is false It was never nor ever shall be granted by me that the second Person hath a greater Name then the first If your argument then be against me 't is turned to nothing But ayme at whom you will I care not my Secondly shall be as you expect Your antecedent holds onely where there may be the relation of Inferioritie and Superioritie not in divinis where one is all and every one in se the same You may therefore conclude nothing hence against us unlesse you can prove that the Holy-Holy-Holy Lord is not one God and that the Name of Jesus by speciall dispensation imposed on the second Person as incarnate is not essentiall Remember now what but now I bad you remember viz. It was the eternall will of God and to a singular purpose namely that he who being in the forme of God and was made man might not be held inferiour unto God Adde this that the second Person was ever the Person which dealt for us in whom God manifested himselfe unto us and through whom onely we have accesse unto the Father Bring these together and 't is most evident that the higher we advance Iesus the more we glorifie God No feare of setting him too high who cannot be sufficiently honoured unlesse he be at highest For he is set at the right hand of the Throne of God Heb. 12.2 Chrysost in Loc. This that Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Father is the highest demonstration of the Fathers glory saith S. Chrysostome See my Antiteich Tract 2. p. 7. 8. Tract 9. p. 89. To the proofe of your antecedent I answer the excellencie of Name argues Superioritie of Persons that by Nature may admit subordination not where every one is the same in the unitie of essence and are equally honoured in and at the super-eminent Name Nor can this contrarie that of the Apostle 1 Cor. 15.27 For we meddle not with the Persons with the significant Name we doe Yet I may safely and will say that as the Sonne of God was humbled in our nature and not the Father nor the Holy-Ghost so was he exalted and yet neither inferiour to the Father in the Humiliation nor in the Exaltation superiour as in Part 1. Sect. 1. This cannot be denyed unlesse you dare denie the other The Answers which I have received to
Christ a Saviour to Hell sinne death and the Grave which must bow as well as other things as appeares by the Premises Part 1. Sect. 12. 3. It deprives Christ of the honour of the most of his creatures which cannot possibly performe the Text as they understand it so that it makes Christ Lord but of a few of the creatures who is Lord of all 4. For those that can performe it Part 1. Sect. 12. it gives to Christ the honour onely of one part of the body when he will be honoured with the whole body and soule so that it makes him Lord but of the knee onely 5. It gives him this honour but one day in the weeke ordinarily Part 1. Sect. 12. and that but now and then in that day and but in one place ordinarily when he will be served at all times and places So that it makes Christ Lord but for the space of a few minutes in one day of the weeke and that but in one place 6. It depriveth Christ of his true Subjects Part 1. Sect. 12. and forceth upon him the members of Antichrist 7. Part 1. Sect. 12. It depriveth Christ of his honour and glory at the great Day of Iudgement and makes his Kingdome in the height of it to be extreamly ridiculous 8. It advanceth the Sonne above the Father Part 2. Sect. 3. Part 1. Sect. 9. 9. It giveth greater honour to the Sonne than to the Father and so maketh inequalitie betweene the Persons of the Trinitie 10. It attributeth our salvation either to the bare Name Jesus Part 2. Sect. 3. and so it is flat Idolatry or else it divideth Christ from himselfe making Iesus and Christ two Persons and from Iehovah making him not God or above God and so it is flat blasphemie Answer 1. It attributes the Name unto Him in which all Power Wisdome Goodnesse c. is manifested No man ever had it so as he nor ever shall 2. It maintaineth the Dutie of the Text declaring that the good acknowledge Iesus their Saviour and the bad their Confounder Hell and the Grave in their proper sense come not at this service figuratively they that is all that are there doe 3. It deprives Christ of no Honour That Honour he therein requires the reasonable pay none else are bound thereto And 〈◊〉 your Tenet be not absurd we may lay by Preaching because â—rees have no eares 4. It is a token of the whole mans obedience within and â—ithout The outward without the inward is Hypocrisie 5. It gives him his Honour so as is prescribed to the glory of the Father At no time the knee may bow to any other which according to the circumstances must bow onely unto him when he may thereby be magnified 6. It demonstrates whose we are None can deprive Christ of his nor force other on him 7. It doth not detract from Christs glory but fully expresseth it at the Great Day Not that it is the whole of his glory but to his glory all and setteth his Kingdome at the height 8. It advanceth not the Sonne above the Father but the Father by the Sonne In him onely shall the glory of the Blessed Trinitie be refulgent 9. It honoureth the Sonne as the Father and maketh the Father and the Sonne equall The honour of the Sonne is the Fathers and no other his 10. It attributes our Salvation unto the Person of Jesus declares that he is anointed thereto and that he being Jehovah is the expresse Character of his Father This it doth and he that said the contrary spake Blasphemy 4. In respect of God the Holy Ghost Part 2. Sect. 3. Part 1. Sect. 11. 1. It makes him inferiour to the Second Person 2 It brings his worke into bondage at the will of man yea sometimes of vile men Answer 1. It argues not inequalitie but inferres the incomprehensible Order of the glorious Trinitie The Sonne in and of the Father and the Holy Ghost in and from them both 2. It performes his Worke as he hath instituted Vile men subject it not to their will they are reproved or avoided for blaspheming it and the dutie is done in that 5. Concerning the Church Part 1. Sect. 11. It gives her authoritie over Gods Word Answer It gives her no Authoritie over Gods Word but sheweth that she followeth the Word of God She doth nothing against nothing beside the analogie thereof 6. Concerning our selves 1. It brings us into bondage Part 1. Sect. 11. by making us to perform Gods worship at every mans pleasure and so it enthralls Gods worship to everie mans will 2. It makes the Church a perpetuall prison Part 1. Sect. 11. and the bowing of the knee never to be ended 3. It makes us to respect our owne benefit more than Gods Glory Part 2. Sect. 6. Part 1. Sect. 8 4. It makes us to serve Christ more corruptly than Devils and Repâ—obates 5. Part 2. Sect. 6. It will make the Saints at the day of Iudgement worse than Idolaters These dangerous and for the most part blasphemous Consequences besides many other senslesse absurdities doe necessarily arise from this opinion therefore it is insufferable and not to be endured Answer 1. It brings us not into bondage but doth manifest that wee abuse not our Christian libertie Being freed from the bondage of the Law wee are not free to doe as wee list The Church according to Gods Word must discipline us 2. It makes not the Church a Prison unlesse it be a slaverie to serve God The bowing of the knee hath but its time and being a subordinate dutie burthens not the worshippers of God 3. It declares that our Salvation is to the great glory of God Wee expresse our thankfulnesse by it and ascribe the whole benefit unto his grace 4. It is a full argument that we confesse Jesus to be our gracious Redeemer So to glorifie God for such grace can be no error much lesse more then Devillish corruption But 't is high impietie in you to abase our bowing unto Jesus beneath the blasphemies of the damned 5. It expresseth in whom the Saints at the Day of Judgement triumph But it proceeds from the Devill to say that it is worse then Idolatrie to extoll his Name who delivered us from the Devill I have done and for your hard-hard Censure of us tell you that if your Booke come not to a violent end God hath permitted bonis male evenisse evill to betyde the good I left with the first Part of your Booke the beginning of an Ode and I will with this â—orat Car. l. 3. â— 2. the end of another Saepe Diespiter Neglectus incesto addidit integrum Raro antecedentem scelestum Deseruit pede poena claude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ERRATA PAge 2. line 23. reade fine p. 4. l. 33. r. Mascall p. 7. l. 17. r. avowe l. 27. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 11. l. 24. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 16. l. 39. r. opposita r. ibid. Oeconomicall p. 18. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 21. l. 31. r. justice p. 27. l. 17. r. our p. 31. l. 9. r. yâ—u p. 34. l. 21. r. amated l. 25. r. Parâ—shioners p. 38. l. 15. r. â—bscuras Scripturas l. 18. r. Nay all p. 41. l. 34. r. take p. 43. l. 15. r. insanit Egidius p. 90. l. 36. r. called Jehovah p 98. l. 7. r. divisa
Steven cals upon Christ personally and distinctly Act. 7.59 So doth S. Paul upon the Father Ephes 3.14 And the distinct Names of each Person doe not personally denote the other Persons as when I say J beleeve in God the Father I doe not in that Article say I beleeve in God the Sonne If then these men say that they honour every Person alike personally at the Name Jesus which they must say if they say any thing they confound the Persons For the Person of the Father is not in the Person of the Sonne nor the Person of the Sonne in the Person of the Father c. but the Persons are distinguished Every Person is in one Divine Essence and the whole Essence in every Person Therefore the Name Iesus being a proper Name to the second Person and not the Name of the first or third Person cannot denominate but onely the second Person And it is plaine that the Name above every Name in the Text is onely proper to the second Person because the second Person onely was humbled therefore the second Person onely received this Name Answer To that answer you reply thus Though they cannot be divided yet the Persons may be distinguished and in their worship too Act. 7.59 Eph. 3.14 True they may yea they must be distinguished yet Saint Stephen calling on Christ personally and distinctly minds him essentially as that God which is the blessed Trinitie And so doth Saint Paul bowing his knees to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ. But you say that the distinct Names of each Person doe not personally denote the other Persons Doe they not so Where is your Logick Where your Metaphysicks Have you forgot that what a Father as a Father is he onely is in respect of his Sonne So a Sonne as a Sonne is that he is in respect of his Father The Father therfore cannot be conceived without the Sonne nor the Sonne without the Father nor the Holy Ghost without them both nor any one without another because what every one is is in relation to one another Yet one is not another that is the Father is not the Sonne nor the Sonne the Holy Ghost Naming then the Father I confesse a distinction of Persons but apprehend not the one without the other And here I tell you that you saying you doe beleeve in God the Father and not saying you doe beleeve in God the Son must insinuate the Sonne or else you are a Tritheite Your inference next that we honouring every Person alike at the Name of Iesus confound the Persons shewes that you never read or would not heed the Orthodoxe rule of ascending the glorious Trinity by his Sonne Who ever saw or ever shall see the Father save in the face of the Sonne Ioh. 14.7.10 Heb. 1.3 And I pray what face is next to us save his Name The Jewes in the Name of Jehovah adored and by the same gracious dispensation doe we at the Name of Iesus honour God Nor doth this make the Person of the Father in the Person of the Sonne as you boldly argue but declares that God who is the blessed Trinity will and no way else be worshipped according to his good pleasure in and through Iesus Christ Nor doth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Fathers say whereby the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father seclude distinction but disjunction In that you say every Person is in one divine essence you seeme to be a Triformian For if every Person were in one essence there would be ter una thrice one essence yet this is true that the whole essence is in every Person You should therefore have said every Person is in unity of essence Nor doth it therefore follow that the Name of Iesus being proper to the Second Person and not the Name of the first or third can denominate but the Second onely For the Name is not proper to the Second Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But if it were doe not relations denominate ad invicem the Father the Sonne the Sonne the Father the Father and the Sonne the Holy Ghost The Name then proper to the Second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as terminating the worke of the salvation in him distinguisheth all and declares all to be one Nor will this seeme strange if you recall that God did ever discover himselfe in the Person of his Sonne Deny it and you denie the whole Worship of God From whence I argue looke as the Sonne is personally honoured so must the Father be But the Sonne is personally honoured by bowing at his Name Ergo So must the Father be Or the Father is not personally honoured by bowing at his Name Therefore the Sonne must not be so honoured I grant that the honour of the Sonne is essentially the honour of all the three Persons because every Person is the selfesame God according to Ioh. 5.24 But here the Question is of the Persons not of the Essence But let us reason from the Essence it makes against them They that honour the Sonne as they honour the Father must so honour the Sonne in the Father as they honour the Father in the Sonne But when they honour the Sonne in the Father they do not bow at the Name of the Father Therefore when they honour the Father in the Sonne they must not bow at the Name of the Sonne for if they doe how doe they honor the Sonne as they honour the Father Answer Your two Syllogismes be false in the one are quatuor termini the other is in quarta figura and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both All the force you could make to uphold these were cut off before And to doe it I must confesse you constrained me to climbe where I tremble to thinke The direction I tooke was from the Scriptures and the Church If I have mistaken I shall not blush to learne Qui legit Aug. de Trin. l. 1◠c. 3. ubi errorem suum cognoscit redeat ad me ubi meum revocet me Let the Reader where he finds his owne error returne to me where mine recall me SECTION X. GOd will not require that duty of any of his creatures to whom he hath not created power of performance I say created to prevent an Objection But if corporall bowing at the Name Iesus be injoyned of God to all the creatures he should require that of the most of his creatures to whom he hath not created power of performance Therefore it is none of Gods injunctions The first part of the Argument cannot be denied without blasphemy by imputing cruelty to Almighty God Answer Your Syllogisme is in quarta figura and that is sufficient answer to it Howsoever you have tumbled it forth this is it God will not require that duty of all his creatures which most have not power to performe But most of his creatures have not power to bow at the Name of Iesus Ergo. To bow at
thing both rationall and irrationall without exception of any For it seemes to me that the Kingdome of Christ set forth in this Text is not onely his Kingdome of Mediatorship but also his naturall Kingdome which from all Eternity he enjoyed with his Father to which Kingdome he is advanced to by his Father according to his humane nature and this seemes to agree with many paraled Scriptures as 1. with Iob. 17.4.5 where Christ prayeth after this manner I have glorified thee on earth I have finished the worke that thou gavest me to doe And now O Father glorifie me with thine owne selfe with that glory which I had with thee before the world was 2. It is proved from Heb. 1.2 God hath in these last dayes spoken unto us by his Son whom he hath made heire of all things by whom also he made the worlds that is God hath advanced his Son according to his humane nature to be partaker of the Glory of his Divine nature who made the worlds and all things therein now to be inheritour of all things Therefore saith Mr. Calvin on that place Hic honor jure debetur c. Calvin oâ— Heb. 1. This honour is rightly due to the Son of God that he should have power over all things because by him all things were made 3. It is confirmed from that paralell place of Col. 1.15.16 4. It is evident from 1 Cor. 15.27 where God having excepted himselfe that did put all things under Christs feet it is plaine hath excepted nothing but himselfe 5. It is manifest from Heb. 2 6 7.8 in which place the Apostle apply's the eight Psalme to Christ where is specified the subjection of irrationall creatures yea the Apostle saith expressely there that God having put all things under Christs feet hath excepted nothing that is not put under him 6. Seeing that it is manifest that this Text of Phil. 2.9.10 shall not be perfectly fulfilled till the day of judgement we shall find that other things besides rationall creatures shall bee subject at that day to Christ for the Apostle shewes 1 Cor. 15.26 that he shall destroy the last enemy which is death and Rev. 20.13 The Sea shall give up the dead which are in her and death and hell shall yeeld up the dead which are in them 7. It may appeare from Rev. 5.13 a place correspondent in phrase and sense to Phil. 2.9.10 where the Holy Ghost having spoken before of all rationall creatures how they praised Christ speakes there of irrationall both sensitive and insensitive and refers them to every creature in heaven in earth and under the earth and in the Sea which creatures groaning now and travelling in paine for the sin of man do long for the day of redemption at which time they shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God and now in their kind they praise and glorifie Christ in hope of it but at that day shall their fullest praise and subjection be So that it seemes to me that no creature or thing is excepted but that all must bow to Christ yea indeed the Text of Phil. 2.9 seemes to me plainly to infer it for the Apostle speaking of all knees of things in every part of the whole universe as Heaven Earth and under the earth seemes to except nothing from bowing to Christ On Phil. 2.9.10 And this appeares to be the judgement of Mr Calvin Omnia à coelis c. God hath subjected all things from heaven to hell to the rule and dominion of Christ And of this opinion are plainly Origen and Hierome as Bishop Babington cites them In his Worke Pag. 245. 246. and thus judgeth Mr. Edward Gurnaie in his Vindication of the Second Commandement Pag. 72. Answer Here you shew an Aesculapian temper though you have read much yet your great Reading will submit to better but your Mercuriall wit hath mangonized a Gigantean fury with an humble hue For by whom you pretend to be guided you looke on with a sinister eye and oppose them with all your might Let me premise that by Names in your first line must be understood every Name under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above V. 9. or else the question is changed This done your argument stands thus The Kingdome of Christ in this Text is not onely of Mediatourship but naturall also Therefore every Name must be referd to all creatures without exception The antecedent is false For though they seclude not one the other as opposita yet when the Oecumenicall is spokâ—n of the essentiall is not intended For thâ— Naturall is Christ◠〈◊〉 Son of God the personall his secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—y dispensation onely as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man This the Apostle minds and the administration of this here and hereafter This is it at the three paralell places Isa 45.23 Rom. 14.11 Phil. 2.10 as the ancient and moderne Divines heeding the context have necessarily inferd See my Antit Tract 6. pag. 53. c. The Texts are very quiet among themselves if you could permit them their senses They doe not all which you have cited speake of the Naturall Kingdome onely But if they did may not Phil. 2.10 be understood of the Personall Doth not the Apostle here say that every knee and every tongue shall confesse that Iesus is Lord or made Heire of all things as to the Hebrewes he writeth Heb. 1.2 How made He ever was Heire and never not Heire as the Sonne of God Made then he was gratia dispensationis and by the Vnion as God and Man As then the Church is in the Common-weale yet is not the Common-weale so here this Personall Kingdome is within the Naturall yet not the Naturall and as in the one so in the other what is spoken of the one is not of the other Your forcing of severall Texts to force on this Text the sense of the Naturall Kingdome makes me feare you are enclining to Eutychisme Not distinguishing how Christ hath any thing in a singular manner you apprehend all things his by nature onely and according to humane nature also in your first and second proofe Indeed Christ-man hath the essentiall Kingdome but not as man for then every man should have it also and where were subjection then Though therefore whatsoever is in or of one or the other Nature may be spoken of the whole person yet not otherwise then limitate according to that nature whose proprietie it is Christ-man hath the essentiall glory according to his Divine nature not according to the humane the humane nature receives of the Divine by grace in fruition not by reall participation There is no more proved at Ioh. 17. Heb. 1.2 nor more in the subsequent citations then that the Sonne of God having taken upon him in our nature a personall Kingdome holds still his naturall And so much doth M. Calvin Calvin in Heb. whom you urge say
you that the Name Jesus was humbled therefore he doth not meane that the said Name was exalted But he doth say that Jesus was humbled and being he was humbled in that Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for this cause his Name also was exalted as before Part 1. Sect. 1. See my Antiteichisma Tract 3. Pag. 16. Encounter whilst you will the more you doe the weaker you First then I deny the Antecedent the Name Iesus did not suffer above other Names It cannot be well proved that this Name suffered at all For no man denyed Christ this Name but both enemies and friends gave it him It was the Person not the Name that suffered neither did Christ suffer for this Names sake When Ioseph and Daniel Types of Christ were abused and persecuted can any say that their proper Names suffered neither can it be truly said that the Name Iesus properly suffered when Christ himselfe suffered Their maine proofe of this Reason they produce from Ioh. 19.19 Where Pilate set up Christs title over his head upon the Crosse Iesus of Nazareth the King of the Jewes This they say was done to him in scorne so that his Name Iesus was made an execration say they I answer it cannot be proved that this Title was set up at all in scorne Iudicious Master Calvin on that place is of another mind For thus he saith Pilaticonsilium fuit c. It was Pilates policy saith he that he might revenge himselfe of the Iewes who by their obstinate importunity had forced him to punish an innocent Person to condemne the whole Nation in the Person of Christ So by his judgement this title was a reproach to the Iewish Natâ—on rather than to Christ He addeth yet further Atqui in Christo hoc extraordinarium fuit quod sine ignominia titulus opponitur This was extraordinary in Christ that without any reproach hi title is set up Secondly The offâ—nce that the Châ—efe Priests of the Iewes tooke at this Title proves it not to be scornefull to Christ who were displeasâ—d with Pilate for it which if it had beene reproachfull they burning in malice against our Saviour would have liked it well enough Thirdly Had it beene set up in scorne it was not in any quarrell to the Name 〈◊〉 â—o the Person Fourthly Had it beene to a Name yet was it not to the Name Iesus but the Title King of the Iewes Answer You may deny what you wil If you prove no better then by denying you shall never be beleevâ—d by me 'T is true the Jews denyed not Christ this Name though they acknowledged not the vertue in him But they did deny the other Lord Christ c. and therefore the argument is against your selfe He was not reviled in them but in this Yâ—a they made it a Name of Scorne cut off the last letter thereof that it among them might not signifie a Saviour and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in derision they say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schind ad rad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Your evasion next is very poore For t is most ridiculous to say that Ioseph and Daniel being abused under a Name were not abused in the Name under which they were abused Under what Name Christ suffered in the same Name suffered he Suppose next and I thinke it cannot be proved that Pilate did set up the Title on the Crosse in scorne of him yet I beleeve that by Divine Instinct he did it to upbraid the Jewes And this the Reverend Bishop Andrewes hath observed to be a kind of Omen or presage of the exalting his Name Master Calvin therefore might well call it Extraordinarium in Christo For acquitting Christ Pilat thereby shewed that Iesus bloud was upon the head of the Jewes Nor is this all Pilat wrot the Title in the three principall Languages and by this praeludium you might have knowne Calvin in Ioh. 19. v. 19. if you had well heeded Master Calvin that the Lord declared the time to be at hand quo filii sui Nomen ubique innotesceret wherein the Name of his Sonne should be every where lifted up Cast up your gaines now and see if this will prove the Name not hatefull to the Jewes No it will not For this was Pilats act not theirs and they opposed it withall their might Ioh. 19.20.21.22 Your Secondly Thirdly and Fourthly are nothing For wee doe not say that Pilat caused the Title to be apposed in scorne of him but rather to the ignominie of the Jewes who crucifyed one Innocent and their owne King This you should prove that the Name of Iesus was not a laughingstock to the Jewes Scorned Vilified despited by them this you cannot doâ— But the tâ—uth is the most Glorious Names of our Saviour as God Sonne of God Page Iust of bowing pag. 42. alibi Christ Iehovah suffered rather in him than the Name Iesus The reason that M. Page gives to preferre the Name Iesus above these Names doth not satisfie for saiâ—h he these Names are glorious and lofty Names in themselves and therefore need no advancement but the Name Iesus was an humble and lowly Name therefore God advanced it I say this Reason is not satisfactory for the Question is not what these Names are simply considered in themselves but what they were in Christ in the time of his humiliation As the Question is not whether we are to bow at the Name Iesus simply considered but at that Name in Iesus Christ I contend then that these aforesaid Glorious Names were more humbled Names in Christ than the Name Iesus For Iesus was his proper Name given him at his Circumcision but these Names are Titles of his honour As Henry and King so is Iesus and Christ saith learned Bishop Babingion Workes Pag. 245. Christ in respect of these Glorious Names suffered exceedingly For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He emptied himselfe of the Glory of these Names The Iewes generally would not give them nor suffer them to be givâ—n unto him Whosoever did but once open his mouth to ascribe any of these Titles of honour to our Saviour presently he suffered for it foâ— whosoever did but confesse him to be the Christ was put out of the Synagogue Iob. 9.22 When at any time he did but take the due honour of any of thâ—se Nâ—meâ— to himselfe they immediately intended mischiefe against him Ioh. 5.18 The Iewes sought to kill him because he said God was his Father making himselfe equall with God So Ioh. 10.33 For thy good workes say they we stone thee not but that thou being a man makest thy selfe God So Mat. 26 65. As soone as he had conf ssed that he was the Christ The high Priest cryed out against him that he blasphemed So that it is evident that our Saviour suffered the paine of losse in respect of these Glorious Names not having the honour of them and not onely so but he suffered also the paine of feeling in himselfe and his members when at
this Argument are these three yet none of them sufficient in my judgement First it is said that the ground and rule above-specified holds between Christ and the Angels and so it will hold betweene Christ and all the rest of the creatures where â—here is a manifest difference but it will not hold betweene the Persons of the Trinitie because they are equall and cannot bee made unequall This answer is very frivolous For the Apostle gives this reason why Christ is better then the Angels viz. because he had oâ—tained a better Name than they which argument had beene weake and uncertaine and he could never have made good what he affirmed if his ground and rule could ever have failed A true rule is a perfect rule or no rule at all 2. True it is that it is indeed impossible that the three Persons should be made unequall yet may one be preferred before or under valued beneath another by some mens opinion or practise For as Arrius under valued the Sonne beneath the Father in that he attributed unto him a Name below the Name of the Father And as we prove against Arrius that Christ is God equall with the Father because of the identitie and samenesse and equalitie of his names and attributes with the Father being called Iehovah Sonne of God called omniscient eternall c. So it will be evidently proved by necessary consequence against these men that hold that opinion howsoever they positively deny it that they are in some degree in an extreame with Arrius preferring Christ above the Father because they attribute unto him a Name greater than the Name of the Father Answer Answers you have received and insufficient three from whom you might have said that they might have done something for themselves The first pertaines to that which I gave before How weake it is your Reply will shew Weake said I Nay frivolous yours For the blowes you made have sunck you to the ground You say before the Apostle proves Hebr. 1.4 that Christ is more excellent then the Angels because he obtained a more excellent Name then they The Rule then is permanent whereof it was made a rule and the argument as strong as he was mightier then the creature Had the comparison beene if I may speake it betweene the most equall three it must have held where it was a comparison but 't was not could not be there Yet I may tell you that the Name of Jesus is the highest manifesting Name of God which was by dispensation put upon the Word Incarnate and made proper to him in whom only God was to be and is and shall for ever be most highly manifested He then is the highest manifested Person God be thanked he is or we should have no peace with God Mistake me not in forma visibili I say the highest manifested in a visible forme yet all are co-equall and co-eâ—ernall all No disparagement this to any of the Persons they take glory all in this See my Antiteich Tract 9. p. 92. 93. In the second reply to the first answer you doe againe shew your ill winding Art Here you would intimate an errour Dang conseqence in 2. Resp 3. in 3. R. 8. and among your dangerous consequences note us twice for advancing the Sonne above the Father Was this ever heard of among Christians Or how can this be done For the more the Sonne is glorifyed the Father is glorifyed the more whilst the Father is not cannot be honoured save in the high advancement of the Sonne A very dangerous consequence sure that is without all possibilitie of danger He is at the brink of Arrianisme â—hat under-values the Name of Jesus beneath the Name of Lord. The Scriptures maintaine the equalitie of the Sonne with the Father by giving him the Inheritance and you his inequalitie by taking away the Birth-right of his Name I never read of an Heresie on our hand but you are on the other where Arrius falling was condemned Secondly They answer that the second Person though of himselfe he be equall with the Father yet in respect of us he is greater because of the worke of redemption which he hath wrought for us I reply This is a strange answer and very unsound for First the Scriptures doe every where as much extoll the love of God in giving his Sonne as the love of Christ in giving himselfe Secondly This answer doth not agree with the Text for the Text injoyneth the bowing therein not onely to us men but generally to all creatures over whom Christs Name is advanced for therefore is every knee of every thing to bow to Christ because he having a Name above every Name hath also a Name above their Names Therefore if the Sonne have a Name above his Fathers Name by the same reason the Father must bow to the Sonne Thirdly By this answer they contradict themselves for when they be challenged that in bowing at the Name Iesus onely they honour the Sonne above the Father they deny it and affirme that they honour all alike at the Name Iesus which indeed they cannot affirme if the second Person be greater to us than the other Persons then we to whom he is greater must honour him more than the other that to us are not so great Even as to the supreme Magistrate in a Kingdome we give a greater honour than to those that to us are not so great as he Answer Your second answer received I beleeve you know not whence shall not by me be in terminis abetted This is all I have owned or will that though the Father and the Son be equall yet the Son is the Person set forth unto us that in whom our Redemption is terminated alone in him the other may be honoured onely This your first reply will not reach For it makes no discrepance of will but shewes that the love of the Father is declared in his Sonne Your second is answered before Sect. 3. and 5. and 7. and 10. so often as often it came The inference that followes there is on a false supposition For we give not the Son a Name above the Father the highest Name of God we doe and in a peculiar manner as God by dispensation gave it him Aug. Epist 274. in whom our redemption is completed Hoc Nomen ex dispensatione misericordiae susceptaque humanitatis assumptum est In your third reply I must againe put you in mind that our dispute is about the Name which is the highest Name of God not the Person which is the greatest Yet I vary not the dignitie of any in saying that the Sonne alone is principium terminus with the Father and the Spirit preparing the efficient but in satisfying the subjâ—ct of our redemption Redemption therefore is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by excellencie his He was deputed to it by consent of the glorious Trinitie and therefore we are bound to acknowledge the right his to the glory of God the Father Thirdly Thus it